Allowed

State Bank of India v. M/s. Dw Upvc Windows

DRT20 Nov 2024OA/162/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Validated an Original Application filed by State Bank of India for recovery of Rs. 75,54,796/- against a partnership firm and its partners for failure to comply with cash credit and term loan terms, resulting in NPA classification.

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 75,54,796/- with future interest and costs; recovery certificate issued.

State Bank of India versus M/s. Dw Upvc Windows — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 2OTH DAY OF NOVEMBER' 2024

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESIDING oFFIcER

¶4

OA.No.t62 ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

State Bank of India, SARB-II, Chikkadpally, Opp Sandhya Theatre, RTC "X" roads, Hyderabad. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. DW UPVC Windows, A partnership firm

¶10

Represented by its partners The defendants 2 & 3 herein Plot no.1B, Sy.No.204 & 238, Pati village,^pata ncherumandal, Sanga reddy district - 502 3OO.

¶11

Sri PaillaVikram Reddy, S/o Sri P. Bat Reddy, Aged about 46, male,

¶12

Occ: business and pa rtner Of defendant no.1 firm

¶13

H.No. 12-1-79lSE, ftat no.2O2, Sri Shailajas Vinay Elite, Anandi enclave, Bandlaguda, Hayathnaga rma nda l, Hyderabad - 500 068.

¶14

¶15

: zorlo'l?m :
-:'
^i
-'. ,$/
ifu;,,q
;':y?ffi

¶16

Plot no.1B, Sy.No.204 & 238, Pati village, Patancherumandal, Sanga reddy district - 502 300.

¶17

SriBokka Rama Krishna,

¶18

(OA.No.162 of 2024)

¶19

s/o Sri B. Malla Reddy, aged about 37 years, male, occ: business and partner of defendant no.1

¶20

H.No.12-1-2lt02, 103, Raghavendranagar, road no.4, Nagole, Hayathnagarmandal, Hyderabad - 500 068.

¶21

And

¶22

Plot no.18, Sy.No.204 & 238, Pati village, Patancherumandal, Sanga reddy district - 502 300.

¶23

Defendants

¶24

Counsel for the Parties:

¶25

For the Applicant

¶26

For the Defendants

¶27

Sri G. PrabhakarSarma Exparte

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.75t54,796/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Fifty Four thousand Seven hundred and Ninety Six only)

¶30

i.e.,

¶31

a) A sum of Rs.54,51,499/- under cash credit loan with interest @ of application till the

¶32

b) @ 13.40% * p.a with monthly rests d+€ dflUffibatios the date of realisation; tr as described

¶33

the schedule to OA.

¶34

(oA.No.162 of 2024)

¶35

As per the averments in the application, the^{ApplicantBankstates} that defendants No.1 is a^partnership firm^{under the name and style} of "DW UPVC Windows" and defendants^{2 and 3 are partners of} defendant no.1 firm availed cash^credit of^{Rs.51 lakhs and term loan} of Rs.24 lakhs (overall limit of Rs.75 lakhs) on^{04.03.2022'The} defendants 2 & 3 executed agreement^{of loan cum hypothecationand} guaranteed the due repayment of loan vide^guarantee agreement' The defendant no.1 hypothecated all the^plant and^machinery, stocks, current assets, raw materials,^{finished and semifinishedetc} more fully described in the schedule to OA.^{After availingthe loan} facility, the defendants failed to comply^{the terms of sanction,hence} the applicant bank was constrained to^{classifythe account as NPA} and issued legal notice 22.04.2024.^{Inspite of several requestsand} demands, the defendants did^{not clear the outstanding'Hence this} oA.

¶36

Defendants No. 1to 3 are called absent and set exparte^on 30.09.2024.

¶37

Sri D. Naga Prasad, Chief Ma k examined himself as AW.1 and exhibi which are marked as Ex.A.l to A.13.

¶38

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the

¶39

(OA.No.162 of 2024)

¶40

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as prayed for?

¶41

7, Defendants remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.13. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the OA with future interest and costs.

¶42

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.75,54,7961- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Fifty Four thousand Seven hundred and Ninety Six only) i.e.,

¶43

a) A sum of Rs.54,51,499l- under cash cre6it loan with interest @ 14.40o/o^p. plication till the date of it,S.^^" @^{'".|^</sup> realisation; , r €$ 7r^{</sup> r*.:. '}}

¶44

b) A sum of Rs.2o,0]287il0\Ju,!-6tsr teII loan with interest @ 13.40o/o p.a ftqiif,dgte of applica{lO{.' I the date of realisation; tifu,+BP

¶45

(OA.No.162 ot 202a1

¶46

The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated properties as described in schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶47

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No.2 & 3 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶48

The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶49

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶50

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶51

L4. Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶52

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of Nov, 2024)

¶53

sd/(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶54

TRHE^GOPV /J C*1^{,c-----Ja.o 1,,/2,-q} '1^') 'Jf'rT3g;ril^'(

State Bank of India v. M/s. Dw Upvc Windows

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M/s. Dw Upvc Windows

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ananda Ratna Rajakumar Bunga versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Ashok Kumar B versus Gic Housing Finance Limited

Mr D Surender Babu versus Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Sri. Dareddy Venu Gopal Reddy

M/S. Instruments Techniques Pvt. Lts., versus M/S. Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Shri. Shakuntala Narender